Western UniversityScholarship@Western

MA Research Paper Sociology Department

August 2015

Gender, Generation, and Jobs: Differences inGender Role Ideologies by Age and OccupationChristina Treleaven

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/sociology_masrp

Part of the Sociology Commons

This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology Department at Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted forinclusion in MA Research Paper by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact tadam@uwo.ca,wlswadmin@uwo.ca.

Recommended CitationTreleaven, Christina, "Gender, Generation, and Jobs: Differences in Gender Role Ideologies by Age and Occupation" (2015). MAResearch Paper. 1.https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/sociology_masrp/1

 

GENDER, GENERATION, AND JOBS: DIFFERENCES IN GENDER ROLE IDEOLOGIES BY AGE AND OCCUPATION

by

Christina Treleaven

A research paper accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Department of Sociology The University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada

Supervisor: Dr. Tracey Adams

2015

 

ii  

ABSTRACT

Gender inequality in the workplace remains a salient issue today; women continue to earn

less than men, driven in part by occupational segregation and by general perceptions about

socially constructed gender norms. Using the United States General Social Survey, I

conduct multivariate Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis to explore the differences in

gender role ideologies by generational cohort and occupation. The results highlight

differences in gender role ideologies amongst occupations and suggest that while perceptions

of gender influence occupational choices, so too do occupations impact our perceptions of

gender roles. Individuals working in occupations atypical for their gender, those who

challenge gender norms through their field of work, tend to hold more egalitarian attitudes

towards gender roles. Such findings reinforce the importance of not only understanding the

individual but also the structural factors that drive our attitudes towards gender and gender

roles, which are of key importance for driving gender equality.

Keywords: Gender, Gender Roles, Generation, Occupational Segregation, U.S. General

Social Survey

 

1  

Significant gains have been made in terms of gender equality in the last few decades.

However, inequality remains. Women continue to earn less than men, driven in part by

occupational segregation and by general perceptions about socially constructed gender norms

(Buchanan, 2014; Cejka & Eagly, 1999; Lips & Lawson, 2009) and young women these days

are less likely to identify as feminist or to identify gender inequalities (Morrison, Bourke, &

Kelley, 2005). To understand the forces driving gender inequality, it is necessary to

understand the nature and impact of gender role ideologies, especially those pertaining to

paid work. By studying perceptions of gender norms, we can begin to understand how

societal changes are driven by and influence our perceptions about gender, leading to

potential opportunities for change.

As Connell (2002) outlines, women and men are believed to have distinct and

dichotomous stereotypical characteristics: while women are nurturing, caring, social, and

emotional, men are aggressive, instinctual, private, and promiscuous. Much research

demonstrates that gender is a social construction, meaning that gender and the attributes

associated with being male or female are culturally defined rather than biologically defined.

West and Zimmerman (1987) go further, arguing that gender is not only an external

imposition but also an active part of everyday life. Individuals actively participate in and

enact these cultural understandings of gender (West & Zimmerman, 1987). These socially

constructed gender norms distinguish between men and women themselves, as well as

outline a separation both between work and family and between ‘men’s work’ and ‘women’s

work’ (Mennino & Brayfield, 2002). These norms not only drive our conception of roles and

responsibilities but also influence our collective ability to identify gender-based inequalities.

This paper provides insight into the ways in which age, in terms of generational cohort and

 

2  

individual age, as well as organizations contribute to and reinforce specific gender norms and

attitudes.

Much recent academic research has prioritized understanding gender inequalities in

the workplace (Buchanan, 2014; Cech & Blair-Loy, 2010; Cejka & Eagly, 1999; Lips &

Lawson, 2009; Reskin, 2000; Weisgram, Bigler, & Liben, 2010; among others). In

particular, understanding the impact of gender role ideologies, stereotypes and values on

gender inequality has been of prime importance. Reskin (2000) argues that while

sociologists have long articulated and demonstrated the existence of discrimination and

inequality in the workplace, not enough has been done to understand the causal factors

driving these inequalities.

Gender Role Ideologies

Attitudes towards gender have changed substantially since the mid-twentieth century

(Nielsen 1990, Hoschild 1989). Traditional gender role ideologies reinforce a nuclear family

ideal where men are expected to be the primary breadwinners in the family while women are

expected to remain in the home as caretakers and mothers (Wilcox and Nock 2007).

However, the prevalence of such household structures has declined and instead the

proportion of families with egalitarian structures, where men and women share the household

economic and domestic responsibilities, has increased (Wilcox and Nock, Maurer and Pleck

2006, Phillips 2013). Alongside these changes in family structure, societal perceptions of

gender role ideologies have changed; the proportion of individuals who are supportive of

women working outside the home and contributing as equal breadwinners has increased over

time, while support for “traditional” gender ideologies has decreased.

 

3  

Despite these changes in gender norms, occupational sex segregation continues to

exist; statistics indicate that as much as 53-77% of the female workforce would have to

switch jobs in order for women to have the same occupational distribution as men when

considering both occupational differences overall and differences within occupations (Cha,

2013; Tomaskovic-Devey et al., 2006). There remain many jobs in which one gender

composes the majority of employees, and often these roles are associated with stereotypical

gendered norms of masculinity and femininity. In other words, some jobs may be seen as

more appropriate for women than are others, and individuals holding stereotypical gender

role beliefs may gravitate to stereotypically gendered jobs, or demonstrate different

commitment levels in the labour force, including part-time versus full-time employment

(Hakim, 2000).

Previous research suggests that the historic trend towards egalitarian views on gender

roles can be attributed to generational change and as such will continue to slow or flatten in

time due to generational replacement (Farley, 1996; Rindfuss, Brewster, & Kavee, 1996;

Spain & Bianchi, 1996). As those with egalitarian ideologies replace those with traditional

ideologies, the trend in ideological change slows and eventually disappears. However, there

is debate over the relative importance of individual age and generational cohort in gender

role ideology development. Mason and Lu (1988) challenged previous findings that cited the

primacy of generational cohort as a driver of gender role ideology and instead found that

individual attitude changes represent a greater proportion of overall change. Conversely,

while Brewster and Padavic acknowledge the important contributions of both individual

attitudes within cohorts and cohort replacement to overall attitude change, they argue that the

 

4  

importance of cohort replacement (generational change) has increased since Mason and Lu’s

(1998) work was completed.

Studies consistently find that the trend in ideology change has slowed; although

egalitarian views continue to be more and more prevalent, the change in ideology is nowhere

near as drastic as earlier timeframes (Brewster & Padavic, 2000; Mason & Lu, 1988). Still,

Brewster and Padavic (2000) argue that monitoring this trend remains important, for a variety

of reasons; individual opinions may change due to societal fluctuations and, more

importantly, the generational cohort change does not act in a concrete and linear manner.

Just as older cohorts may have been influenced by the women’s movement, younger women,

particularly Generations X and Y, are now much less likely to identify with feminism

generally (Morrison et al., 2005; Suter & Toller, 2006) and because of this they have the

potential to change or impact the gender ideology trend.

Many factors may influence perceptions of gender role ideologies, and this paper will

consider the impact of two key independent variables: age (in terms of individual age and

generational cohort), and occupational category. Although research typically demonstrates

that attitudes towards gender roles influence employment choices, and gender is often seen as

something that people bring into the workplace rather than as inherent in the workplace itself

(Acker, 1990), individuals actively participate in the gendering process in a cyclical manner

(West & Zimmerman, 1987); people may gravitate towards jobs that fit their gender role

ideology, but gender is embedded in and reproduced in organizations and through social

interactions.

 

5  

Age and Gender Roles

Schnittker, Freese, & Powell, (2003) found that individuals who entered adulthood

during the “second-wave” feminist movement are more likely to hold specific feminist

attitudes, while others have found that younger generations are less likely to perceive gender

and gender issues as salient in today’s society or, more specifically, to identify themselves as

feminist (Morrison et al., 2005; Ortner, 2014; Suter & Toller, 2006). Although it makes

logical sense to attribute these attitudes to the widespread feminist movement or to a post-

feminist world, we may also want to consider how these perceptions may change with age.

Perhaps, rather than being attributable to growing up in a specific time, we can attribute

changes in attitudes to aging itself, regardless of when the members of various age groups

were born.

• Hypothesis 1a: Individuals born in Generation Y will hold more egalitarian

attitudes towards gender roles than individuals born in older generations.

• Hypothesis 1b: Older individuals will hold more traditional gender role

ideologies than younger individuals, controlling for generational cohort

Occupation and Gender Roles

Much of the research conducted on the relationship between occupation and gender

role ideologies focusses on the role that gender role ideologies play in shaping occupational

preferences, experiences, and pay. Individuals form conceptions about gender, and about

men’s work and women’s work, long before they enter the workforce. Weisgram et al.

(2010) and Teig and Susskind (2008) both demonstrate that gender roles influence

occupational preferences in that males prefer masculine occupations while females prefer

feminine occupations. Firestone, Harris and Lambert (1999) found that gender role

 

6  

ideologies impacted earnings, and similarly Buchanan (2014) found that gender role

ideologies influence expectations of performance. In particular, he argues that individuals

with more egalitarian gender role attitudes are less likely to assume that female performance

in the workplace is inferior to male performance. Additionally, liberal gender role views are

associated with stronger support for equal pay, except in the case of white male participants

(Buchanan, 2014).

Although these studies demonstrate that gender role ideologies are related to

occupation, they do not consider the impact that occupation may have on gender role

ideologies. Acker (1990) argues that occupations themselves, along with the concept of the

ideal worker, are gendered. Gendered structures and perceptions exist externally to the

individuals within the workplace and reproduce gender beliefs and expectations for men and

women especially in relation to work and appropriate work/life decisions. Thus, gendered

structures may influence individual perceptions about gender. Furthermore, occupational sex

segregation may reinforce gendered norms and expectations thereby influencing attitudes

towards gender norms. Employment in traditionally male-dominated or female-dominated

occupations may contribute to a more traditional view of gender roles.

It is therefore worthwhile to consider the impact of occupation, particularly in male-

dominated and female-dominated fields such as trades and labour or sales and service,

respectively, on gender role ideologies. As West and Zimmerman (1987) explain, gender is

not fixed but, rather, is fluid and as such our interactions within the workplace and the

structures and expectations of the organization can influence how we perceive gender and

gender norms. In her study on men in non-traditional fields, Williams (1995) provides strong

 

7  

examples of the challenges facing individuals who contradict these societal norms, and the

ways in which organizations steer non-conformists towards accepted gendered behaviours.

• Hypothesis 2a: Individuals in gender-typical fields may hold less egalitarian

attitudes towards gender roles than individuals employed in fields atypical for

their gender

• Hypothesis 2b: There may be an interaction between occupation and gender

such that men and women employed in gender-typical fields may hold more

traditional attitudes towards gender role ideologies than their counterparts in

fields not typically associated with their gender.

Additional Control Considerations

Research has also demonstrated that intersections between race, ethnicity, and class

produce variations in gender norms and attitudes (Browne & Misra, 2003). Buchanan (2014)

finds that African American respondents in his study expressed more egalitarian gender role

attitudes than White respondents, were more likely to support equal pay, and were less likely

to associate inferior work performance with women.

Given these previous findings, a number of covariates are considered as potentially

correlated to gender role ideologies. Control variables in this study will include survey year,

race/ethnicity, gender, education, survey language, employment status, likelihood of job loss,

mother’s employment status when the respondent was growing up, strength of religious

association, and political views. Previous studies have demonstrated statistically significant

differences in gender role attitudes between men and women, with men holding more

traditional views, as well as among levels of education, with college graduates holding the

least traditional views (Brewster & Padavic, 2000). Brewster and Padavic (2000) found that

 

8  

church attendance was positively correlated with traditional gender role views, but argue that

this was stronger for older cohorts, while Mason and Lu (1988) found that those with more

liberal views tended to support more egalitarian gender roles. Primary language is included

as an additional control variable to explore any differences in ideology and/or ideology

change between English-speaking and Spanish-speaking respondents as the survey used in

this study, the US GSS, has been offered in Spanish since 2006. Mother’s employment status

has also been shown to influence perceptions of gender role ideologies: those whose mothers

were employed while the respondents were children are more likely to espouse egalitarian

gender role ideologies (Buchanan, 2014).

This present analysis builds on previous research which investigated the changing

gender role ideologies in the United Stated between the 1970s and the 1990s, identifying a

societal transition from more traditional to more egalitarian gender roles. There is reason to

question whether this trend has continued as younger generational cohorts tend to

demonstrate an aversion to labelling themselves as feminist and are often hesistant to frame

experiences in the context of gender, but rather espouse postfeminist attitudes that equality

has been achieved (Morrison et al., 2005; Schnittker, Freese, & Powell, 2003; Suter & Toller,

2006). Furthermore, previous research has focused on the association between gender role

ideologies and occupational choice (Cejka & Eagly, 1999; Correll, 2001; Weisgram et al.,

2010), rather than exploring how gendered organizations and occupations may influence

perceptions of gender roles. This paper will evaluate the association between younger

generational cohorts as well as employment in gendered fields and gender role ideologies.

 

9  

Methods

Using the United States General Social Survey (US GSS), conducted since 1972 by

the National Opinion Research Centre, this paper examines attitudes towards gender role

ideology. The US GSS dataset is appropriate because it is conducted every two years and

includes identically worded gender role questions in every wave since 1977. The data

include numerous covariates, allowing for multiple controls and therefore a deeper

understanding of the factors that are related to gender roles. No similar Canadian data

consistently captures perceptions of gender roles, and thus this dataset provides information

that cannot be accessed elsewhere.

The US GSS is nationally representative and uses a modified random sampling

approach to capture the opinions of the non-institutionalized population of English and

Spanish-speaking (since 2006) Americans over the age of 18. Controlling for survey year,

this paper pools data from 10 waves of the study, including years 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002,

2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014, resulting in average attitudinal scores over the 18-

year time period and a total potential sample size of 27,219 respondents. As explained

below, the dependent variable is an additive scale comprising three questions, each of which

were asked of 2/3 of the sample (n=15,719). Any respondent who selected the “Don’t Know”

response category or did not answer one of the questions was removed from the sample

(n=667 or 4% of the sample). These missing responses were evenly distributed across the

three questions and represent a small percentage of the total respondents.

The key independent variable measures occupational field using an industrial

classification system, and missing cases (n=693) were deleted, as the purpose of including

this variable is to determine the different gender ideologies by occupational field. Because

 

10  

the question is worded such that individuals who were previously employed could provide an

occupation, those who are retired or who left the workforce (for instance to care for young

children) are included in the study. Although these individuals are not presently employed,

their occupation is measured based on the field in which they were previously employed.

Individuals who were never employed would not be represented in the study.

Missing cases were deleted for several independent variables as they represented small

proportions of the total sample size: generation (n=45), marital status (n=7), work status

(n=4), and education (n=36). Additionally, missing data was removed for mother’s

employment when respondent was growing up (n=840) as, similarly to the dependent

variable, it was only asked of 2/3 of the sample each wave. “Missing” categories were

created for the following control variables due to large numbers of missing respondents with

statistically different responses: political views, religion, strength of religious affiliation, and

likelihood of job loss. The final analytic sample includes 13,423 respondents.

The US GSS does not ask explicit questions about gender role ideologies; therefore,

based on previous approaches used by Brewster and Padavic (2000) and Mason and Lu

(1988), I used a modified scale for the dependent variable comprising three attitudinal

questions that measure gender role ideology. These questions focus on preferences regarding

the division of labour in the home between men and women, and the impact of working

outside the home on mothers’ relationships with their children:

1. It is much better for everyone if the man is the achiever and the woman takes care of

the home and family

2. A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works

 

11  

3. A working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her

children as a mother who does not work

Each question is measured on a four-point scale of Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,

and Strongly Disagree. After reverse coding the values for question 3 to ensure consistency

of direction in response categories, the scale ranges from 3 to 12 points, with 3 being the

most traditional attitudes and 12 being the most egalitarian attitudes. For ease of

interpretation I recoded the scale to range from 1 (most traditional) to 10 (most egalitarian).

When considered together these variables represent an index of gender role ideology, from

most to least traditional, with a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.73.

A limitation of using this question series is that each question represents a specific facet

of gender role attitudes, and as such does not provide a comprehensive analysis of attitudes

towards gender inequality as a whole. The questions address only mothers’ perspectives and

so seem to inherently minimize the contributions of fathers or at the very least to reinforce

the notion that mothers and fathers play different roles, automatically assuming the very

social constructions I am trying to investigate. Furthermore, the reference to “works” seems

to translate to “works [outside the home]” which essentially establishes women’s work in the

home as not work (Brewster & Padavic, 2000; Mason & Lu, 1988). Although, as with any

secondary dataset, these are imperfect measures of the concept, they do provide significant

insight into gender norms. Despite the outlined limitations, the variables selected have been

used for many years and provide a strong starting point for understanding perceptions of

gender roles as they relate to paid employment.

There are two key independent variables for this study: generational cohort and

respondent’s occupation. Generational cohort was measured as respondents’ birth year and

 

12  

recoded into categories: Lost Generation (1883-1900); Greatest Generation (1901-1927);

Silent Generation (1928-1945); Baby Boomers (1946-1964); Generation X (1965-1980);

Millenials/Generation Y (1981-Present). Occupation was measured based on the question

“What kind of work do you (did you normally) do? That is, what (is/was) your job called?”

and responses were coded using the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupation

(ISCO) system based on the 1980 US Census Occupational Codes (Smith, Marsden, Hout, &

Kim, n.d.). While updates are regularly made to the GSS occupation codes, they are only

used for new respondents and are not used to recode previous surveys. However, all

respondents receive both the most up-to-date occupation code as well as all previous

occupation codes; I can only use the codes that were in place prior to 1996 to ensure all

respondents are captured.

The occupational categories included in the analysis are: Trades and Labourers;

Legislators, Sr. Officials and Managers; Professionals; Technicians and Associate

Professionals; Clerks; Service Workers and Sales; Nursing Professionals; Teaching

Professionals; and, Armed Forces1. The reference category, Trades and Labourers, was

selected because it is the largest category and because it had the lowest mean score on the

gender role ideology scale when considering the bivariate correlation between gender roles

and occupation.

Additional factors related to employment were also considered in this study and were

represented by work status, likelihood of job loss, and mother’s work status when respondent

was growing up. Brewster and Padavic (2000) argue “an exogenous factor, such as [an]

economic reversal, that throws thousands of men into unemployment, can completely shift                                                                                                                1  The  occupational  categories  are  based  on  the  1980  US  census  occupational  codes,  which  include  overarching  categories  as  well  as  subfields  within  each  area.      The  overall  professional  category  was  very  broad  and  included  multiple  professions  that  tend  to  be  dominated  by  one  gender.    Teaching  and  nursing  professionals  were  extracted  from  the  professions  category  to  ensure  that  the  gendered  makeup  of  certain  occupation  was  more  accurately  reflected.      

 

13  

the direction of a trend” (p. 478); perhaps those who are in more precarious economic and

work situations will hold different attitudes towards gender than those with secure full-time

work. Furthermore, there are likely gender differences in choices to work part-time or to

keep house that are related to gender role ideologies.

Work status was based on the question “Last week were you working full time, part

time, going to school, keeping house, or what?” with response categories including Working

Full Time (which I treated as the reference category), Working Part Time, Unemployed,

Retired, School, Keeping House, and Other. Because the occupation variable used in this

study was asked of all respondents who had ever been employed, including current

employment and past employment, individuals who are retired, in school, and keeping house

are included in the results of the study.

Likelihood of job loss was based on the question “Thinking about the next 12 months,

how likely do you think it is that you will lose your job or be laid off?” with the response

categories Very Likely, Fairly Likely, Not Too Likely, Not Likely, and Leaving The Labour

Force. For ease of interpretation, I recoded the variable to combine the Very Likely and

Fairly Likely categories as Likely to Lose Job, with Not Too Likely and Not Likely as Not

Likely to Lose Job. Leaving The Labour Force (n=5) was included with the Don’t Know/No

Answer category, which was included as a third category in the regression analyses because

it was extremely large; the question was only posed for those who were currently employed,

therefore anyone retired, attending school, or keeping house was not included in the

responses.

Additional demographic and attitudinal characteristics (see Table 1) were drawn from

previous studies (see Brewster & Padavic, 2000; Firestone, Harris, & Lambert, 1999; Mason

 

14  

& Lu, 1988). Survey Language, measuring whether the respondent completed the survey in

English or Spanish, was included to determine whether cultural differences influence gender

role ideologies. Controlling for political and religious beliefs, as well as strength of religious

affiliation, was important because they may be confounded with gender role ideologies.

Political Views was based on the question “do you think of yourself as liberal or

conservative” with response categories Extremely Conservative, Conservative, Slightly

Conservative, Moderate, Slightly Liberal, Liberal and Extremely Liberal. For ease of

analysis and to address the issue of a large proportion of missing data, I collapsed the

categories into Conservative, Moderate, Liberal and Don’t Know/No Answer (n=714).

Respondents were also asked about the strength of their religious affiliation: “would you

consider yourself a strong [denomination] or not very strong [denomination],” with response

categories of Strong, Not Very Strong, and Not Religious.

Bivariate associations were tested using t-test and chi-squared tests, while

multivariate OLS regression models estimate mean scores on the gender ideology scale for

occupation and generational cohort, controlling for (a) demographic characteristics, (b) work

status and job precariousness, and (c) political and religious attitudes. An interaction was

estimated for the difference in the association between occupation and gender role ideology

by gender, as it is possible that women in certain occupational fields may hold different

gender attitudes than men in the same fields. Additionally, the final regression model,

including all covariates, was stratified by gender to determine whether or not there are

differences in covariate statistical significance for men and women. The regression equation

is as follows:

𝑦=β! + 𝛽!𝐴𝑔𝑒! + 𝛽!𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛! +  𝛽!𝑂𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛! +  𝛽!𝑌𝑒𝑎𝑟! + 𝛽!𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑠!+ 𝛽!𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘  𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠! + 𝛽!𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙  𝑎𝑛𝑑  𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠  𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑠!

 

15  

Demographic variables include sex, race, and education while Work Status includes

respondents’ work status, likelihood of job loss, and mother’s work status when the

respondent was growing up. Political and Religious Attitudes include religion, strength of

religious affiliation, and political views.

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the variables included in this study. The

majority of respondents fall in the Baby Boomer cohort (39%), followed by Generation X

(29%). Millenials/Generation Y and the Greatest Generation as the youngest and oldest

cohorts represent 9% and 6% of the sample, respectively. Occupational categories are

roughly similar in size, with the exception of Trades and Labourers, which represents the

largest proportion of the sample at 28%. Legislators, Senior Officials and Managers

represent 13% of the sample while Professionals represent 10% of the sample. Teaching

professionals account for nearly 6% of the sample and Technicians and Associate

Professionals, Clerks, and Service Workers and Sales each represent approximately 13% of

the sample.

The mean age of sample respondents is 47 years and the mean years of education is

13.5, with two key peaks at 12 years and 16 years, representing high school graduation and

university graduation. The majority of sample respondents are married (48%) or never

married (24%) with the remaining respondents either widowed or divorced. Nearly two-

thirds of respondents indicated that their mothers worked while they were growing up, and

over half of the sample (54%) were employed full-time at the time of their interview.

Political views were relatively even across the sample, with nearly 40% of respondents

 

16  

identifying as Moderate (37%), just over 30% identifying as Conservative (33%), and one

quarter of respondents identifying as Liberal (26%). The majority of the sample selected

Strong or Not Very Strong (with 36% each) in terms of strength of religious preferences.

Bivariate

Table 2 presents bivariate regression results for the two key independent variables:

generation and occupation. Regression coefficients indicate that the differences between

each category and the reference categories are statistically significant. In the bivariate model,

Generation Y holds the most egalitarian gender role ideologies, with the highest scores on the

scale. The regression coefficients for the Baby Boomers (-0.53) and Generation X (-0.26)

each indicate slightly lower scores on the scale compared to Generation Y, while the Greatest

Generation scores nearly 2 points lower on the scale than the reference category (-1.95).

A similar pattern emerges when considering respondents’ occupation, with the

reference category, Trades and Labourers, scoring the lowest on the scale when compared to

all other occupational categories. Nursing professionals hold the most egalitarian views

compared to the reference category with a regression coefficient of 1.2, while Service

Workers and Sales workers are only slightly more egalitarian than Trades and Labourers with

a regression coefficient of 0.492. Despite these results, controlling for the covariates

provides additional insight and changes both the direction and magnitude of regression

results.

Multivariate

Table 3 presents regression coefficients for four multivariate models. Although each

generational cohort is statistically different from Millenials when we consider the bivariate

 

17  

relationship, no statistical differences amongst generational cohorts remain after controlling

for demographic characteristics and attitudes, with the exception of the Greatest Generation,

which is comparatively less egalitarian. Age, however, remains significant in all models and

as age increases, scores on the gender role ideology scale tend to decrease. By Model 4, for

every one unit increase in age there is a corresponding -0.0089 decrease in gender role

ideology score.

Several occupation categories demonstrate statistically different results from that of

Trades and Labourers. In Model 2, Professionals, Sales and Service workers, and Teaching

professionals hold more egalitarian attitudes than the reference category. Adding mother’s

employment status, labour force status, and likelihood of job loss into Model 3 results in a

suppression of the statistically significant difference between Sales and Service Workers and

Trades and Labourers, but after controlling for political views and strength of religious

affiliation in Model 4, the difference becomes significant once again. Although Nursing

professionals held significantly different attitudes towards gender roles in the bivariate

relationship compared to Trades and Labourers, once the control variables have been

included in the model, no statistical difference in attitudes between the two remains.

When considering the interaction between occupation and sex, female Legislators and

Senior Officials hold even more egalitarian gender role ideology scores than their male

counterparts. Interestingly, women in the Sales and Service sector hold less egalitarian views

(or more traditional views) than men in Sales and Service jobs, and in fact score lower on the

gender role ideology scale than men in Trades and Labour positions. These results hold

across all three models in which the interaction was included. While female professionals

 

18  

demonstrate more egalitarian attitudes than male professionals in Models 2 and 3, in Model 4

the difference is no longer statistically significant.

Demographic characteristics such as sex, age, education and race are each statistically

significant across all models. Females tend to hold more egalitarian attitudes than males, and

for every one year increase in education there is a corresponding 0.88 increase in a

respondent’s score on the gender ideology scale by Model 4. As has been demonstrated in

previous studies (Buchanan 2014), Black people hold more egalitarian attitudes towards

gender roles than White people, while those in the ‘other’ category for race hold more

traditional attitudes. Furthermore, even when controlling for race, those who took the survey

in Spanish hold significantly more traditional attitudes towards gender roles than those who

took the survey in English.

While the majority of respondents stated that their mother worked when they were

growing up (67%), those whose mothers did not work have statistically lower scores on the

gender role ideology scales, meaning that they hold more traditional attitudes towards gender

roles. Respondents who are working part-time or keeping house hold more traditional gender

role attitudes, even when controlling for gender and other variables that may influence an

individual’s decision not to work full time.

As one might expect, self-identified Liberals hold the most egalitarian gender role

attitudes, with Moderates, Conservatives, and those choosing not to answer the question each

demonstrating significantly lower scores on the gender role ideology scale. Strength of

religion also had a number of significant results, with those who state that they have a strong

religious affiliation holding the most traditional gender role attitudes, and those whose

 

19  

affiliation is only somewhat strong and those who have no religion holding more egalitarian

gender attitudes.

Although including an interaction term for sex and occupation provides additional

insight into the correlation between occupation and gender role ideologies, several of the

other covariates may in fact differ by gender and as such I opted to stratify the model by

gender to determine which covariates are statistically significant for men and women,

respectively. Table 4 presents these additional regression results, demonstrating that the

variables relevant to gender role ideologies differ by gender. It is important to note that for

ease of comparison the reference categories are the same for each gender. However, while

Trades and Labour is a common career choice for men, it is a strongly non-traditional career

choice for women and therefore we would expect that female Trades and Labourers might

hold more egalitarian attitudes towards gender compared to other occupational fields.

Differences in gender role ideologies by generation are only significant for men, and

only for the Greatest Generation (-0.65), holding more traditional views than Generation Y.

Conversely, age is only significant for women, with a corresponding -0.00997 decrease in

score on the gender role ideology scale for every one-year increase in age. Although on a

yearly basis this may seem small, over the course of several decades this can result in a

substantially lower score.

Gender role ideology scores for occupations, in relation to Trades and Labourers,

provide distinctly different statistical results for men and women. Male Professionals (0.28),

Service Workers and Sales employees, (0.20), and Teaching Professionals (0.41) demonstrate

significantly higher scores on the gender role ideology scale than Trades and Labourers.

Conversely, 3 occupational categories are significant for women, and although female

 

20  

Legislators, Senior Officials, and Managers (0.17) as well as Professionals (0.25) score

higher on the gender ideology scale than Trades and Labourers, female Service Workers and

Sales employees (-0.19) score lower than Trades and Labourers.

The relevance of demographic characteristics for gender role ideology scores differs

by gender as well. On average, men identifying as Black hold more egalitarian views on

gender roles than men identifying as White, while women identifying as Black do not hold

statistically different views than women identifying as White. Marital Status is significant

for women but not men; women who are Divorced or Separated (0.13) and women who have

never married (0.19) score higher on the gender role ideology scale than married women.

However, both men and women answering the survey in Spanish hold more traditional views

than those taking the survey in English, and both men and women whose mothers worked

when they were young hold more egalitarian views than those whose mothers did not work.

Although political views and strength of religious affiliation appear to have similar

levels of significance and direction of correlations for both men and women, the impact of

labour-related variables differs across genders. Labour force status is only significant for

women, with those working part-time or keeping house (-0.39) holding more traditional

gender role ideologies than those working full time. Furthermore, job precariousness is also

only significant for women, with those likely to lose their jobs holding more traditional views

(-0.35) than those who are not likely to lose their jobs. Those for whom job loss is not

applicable (those not currently working, including those keeping house) hold more traditional

views as well (-0.36).

 

21  

Discussion

Beliefs about gender and gender roles can and do change over time, and this study

seeks to understand how attitudes towards gender differ by generational cohort and

occupation. Using the US General Social Survey data from 1996 through 2014, I conducted

multivariate OLS regression models to understand the association between generation,

occupation, and gender role ideologies, controlling for demographics, labour forces factors,

and political and religious attitudes.

The first hypothesis in this paper supposed that respondents in Generation Y would

hold more egalitarian attitudes towards gender roles than older generations. The results of

the study do not support this hypothesis; despite an apparent trend in increasing egalitarian

attitudes towards gender over time, as previous studies have found (Brewster & Padavic,

2000; Mason & Lu, 1988), controlling for occupation, demographic characteristics, and

political and religious attitudes results in limited statistical differences among generations.

With the exception of respondents in the Greatest Generation, who hold more traditional

views on gender roles than Generation Y, generation (as it is framed in this study) is not

correlated to gender role ideology. Hypothesis 1b proposed that older individuals at different

ages would hold more traditional attitudes towards gender roles even when controlling for

generation. Age remains significant across all multivariate models, with older individuals

holding more traditional gender role attitudes, supporting this hypothesis. Once the models

are stratified by gender, however, this correlation remains significant only for women.

Although several studies have indicated that young women today are less likely than older

women to identify as feminist, and do not tend to contextualize issues and challenges in

terms of gender (Morrison et al., 2005; Ortner, 2014; Schnittker et al., 2003; Suter & Toller,

 

22  

2006), some previous research indicates that young women may hold equally or more

egalitarian attitudes compared with older women (Schnittker et al., 2003). Additionally,

trends in changing family structures and divisions of household labour may indicate and

reinforce more egalitarian gender norms (Maurer & Pleck, 2006; Phillips, 2013; Wilcox &

Nock, 2007) which may help to explain why younger women hold more egalitarian views

than older women.

My second set of hypotheses concerned the relationship between occupation and

gender role ideologies. My hypotheses predicted that individuals in male-dominated or

female-dominated fields might hold more traditional gender role ideologies than individuals

employed in fields not traditional for their gender. Building on the premise of the gendered

organization as articulated by Acker (1990), this paper evaluates the extent to which

occupations themselves are related to, and potentially reinforce, gender norms.

The overarching results indicate that men in gender neutral or female-dominated

fields, such as service workers and teaching professionals, tend to hold more egalitarian

attitudes towards gender than men in traditionally masculine fields like trades and labour.

Similarly, women in traditionally female-dominated fields like sales and services tend to be

less egalitarian than women in non-traditional fields including professionals and legislators

or senior officials. Further, the results demonstrate that both male and female professionals

tend to hold more egalitarian views, even when controlling for education. Although

historically many professions were male-dominated, women have made significant inroads,

and formerly male-dominated professions are more gender neutral today; for example, in

2010 women represented 47.9% of US law school graduates and currently make up 45% of

associates (Catalyst, 2014), and women represent 41% of PhDs (Executive Office of the

 

23  

President, 2011) in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields. However,

occupational segregation remains an important contributor to gendered inequalities in the

workplace, as professions certainly demonstrate. Despite the statistics listed above, women

represent only 20% of managing partners at law firms (Catalyst, 2014), and only 28% of

tenured academic positions in STEM fields (Executive Office of the President, 2011).

Because this study looks at professions as one single category, the nuances amongst specific

fields cannot be as clearly identified. In other words, although both male and female

professionals appear to hold more egalitarian views, there could be different attitudes among

specific professions within the category.

Challenging the gendered status quo is not easy, and many studies have articulated

the challenges women face as they enter non-traditional fields (Demaiter & Adams, 2008;

Miller, 2004; Roth, 2004). Although these women often downplay gender in the workplace,

by entering into fields that are not associated with typically feminine characteristics they are,

ultimately, challenging gender norms. As such, it is not surprising that they might have more

egalitarian views regarding gender. Conversely, women in traditional fields, specifically

Service Workers and Sales employees, appear more inclined to espouse traditional gender

role ideologies.

Masculinity plays a powerful role for men who work in nontraditional fields

(Williams, 1995). According to Williams’ (1995) study on men who do ‘women’s work’,

men in these fields use a variety of tactics to distinguish themselves from women and

establish and maintain a “subjective sense of their masculine identity” (p. 144). Although a

minority of men in the interviews rejected hegemonic masculinity and developed their own

conception of alternative masculinities, those individuals stated that they felt pressure to

 

24  

conform to hegemonic norms. The dependent variable in this study focused on women’s

roles as caretakers and workers, rather than masculinity specifically, and the results indicate

that men in gender neutral or traditionally female-dominated fields do in fact hold different

attitudes towards gender than men in traditionally male-dominated fields. These results are

consistent with certain aspects of Williams’ (1995) findings.

Brewster and Padavic (2000) argue that economic downturns may drive individuals to

change their expectations of gender roles, while others suggest that discrimination may occur

in times where individuals compete for employment (Bonacich, 1972). Many scholars have

shown how men have historically restricted women’s job opportunities for their own

advantage. In this study, however, it was not men in precarious positions that held traditional

gender roles, but women. Women who are working part-time, keeping house, and who are

likely to lose their jobs tend to hold more traditional gender role attitudes. These individuals

may have chosen to work part-time, keep house, or engage in precarious work due to their

own personal preferences (Casey & Alach, 2009), while some choose to stay home and raise

their children, or work part-time to facilitate raising their children, because they hold more

traditional attitudes towards women’s roles in the home and the workplace. In this regard,

gender role ideologies may influence work status and employment in precarious fields where

job loss is likely, such as contract and temporary work.

Additional factors that influence attitudes towards gender roles include various

demographic characteristics and political and religious attitudes. In particular, those who

identify as Black, or African American, hold more egalitarian attitudes towards gender roles

than those who identify as White. This finding is consistent with previous work that suggests

that African Americans tend to be more egalitarian overall (Buchanan, 2014; Mason & Lu,

 

25  

1988). Buchanan (2014) argues that this may be driven by the fact that working outside the

home has been a norm for African American women than for white women. He also finds

that individuals whose mothers worked when they were young hold more egalitarian gender

attitudes, but the statistical difference in race holds even when he controls for whether or not

the respondent’s mother worked while the respondent was growing up, as is the case in this

paper. Additionally interesting is that even when controlling for race, those who completed

the survey in Spanish hold significantly more traditional attitudes towards gender roles than

those who completed the survey in English. This finding suggests that there are perhaps

additional cultural aspects influencing gender role ideologies.

Political and religious attitudes were also significantly related to the gender ideology

scale for individuals across the political spectrum and for those both with and without strong

affiliations. Consistent with Mason and Lu (1988), Liberals hold the most egalitarian

attitudes towards gender role ideologies when compared with Moderates and Conservatives,

and those without a strong religious affiliation or with no religion tend to hold more

egalitarian gender attitudes than those with strong religious affiliations. Religion often goes

hand in hand with certain political affiliations, particularly with Christianity and

Conservatism in the United States, and there are certain gender roles inherent in Christianity

generally, specifically in relation to the position of women in the family, that align with more

the traditional gender role ideologies reflected in this scale (Gonsoulin & LeBoeuf, 2010;

Phillips, 2013). Because of this, the findings make logical sense in conjunction with one

another and with previous research.

 

26  

Limitations and Future Research

As with any study, this paper faces certain limitations. Question wording for the

dependent variable has heteronormative and gendered characteristics, and assumes specific

attitudes that the paper is trying to investigate. Certain variables also pose limitations for this

study and can potentially bias results. Analyzing age, cohort, and time collectively results in

an issue called the “Age-Period-Cohort” problem. I attempted to overcome this issue by

treating generation as a categorical variable and compare each cohort in relation to

Generation Y, but this produces different results from previous work and is therefore not

easily comparable. Despite these limitations, I endeavored to produce results that are as

representative as possible and the outcomes of the regression analyses reconcile with the

literature well.

Future research could consider using a Generalized Linear Latent and Mixed Model

(GLAMM) rather than simple OLS regression, to account for the exogenous effects

associated with the changes in survey year beyond those included in the model. It may be

beneficial to consider stratifying the model by occupation, rather than simply comparing each

field to Trades and Labourers, to understand whether or not covariate significance differs by

occupational field. For example, perhaps job precariousness matters more for gender role

ideology scores for certain occupational fields than for others. Finally, it may be beneficial

to consider the association between overarching economic trends and gender role ideologies.

Based on the results of this study, men who are at risk of losing their jobs and those who are

not working full time do not report different gender role attitudes than men working full time.

If society as a whole experiences an economic decline, it may lead to different gendered

expectations, which could impact the potential for driving gender equality forward.

 

27  

Conclusion

Although society has been progressing towards gender equality for some time, a

number of gendered inequalities remain, from the wage gap to occupational segregation to

the perceptions of what constitute “men’s work” and “women’s work”. This paper highlights

differences in gender role ideologies amongst occupations and finds that while perceptions of

gender influence occupational choices, so too do occupations impact our perceptions of

gender roles. Individuals working in occupations atypical for their gender, those who

challenge gender norms through their field of work, tend to hold more egalitarian attitudes

towards gender roles. Such findings reinforce the importance of not only understanding the

individual but also the structural factors that drive our conceptions of, and attitudes towards,

gender and gender roles.

 

28  

Appendix: Tables and Results

Table&1:&Descriptive&StatisticsN=#13423 Mean Percent

Age 46.7

Education 13.6

Respondent's&Generation&(Generation*Y)Greatest#Generation 5.8Silent#Generation 17.5Baby#Boomers 38.8Generation#X 29.1Generation#Y 8.7

Respondent's&Occupation&Category&(Trades*and*Labourers)Legislators,#Sr.#Officials#and#Managers# 13.2Professionals# 10.5Technicians#and#Associate#Professionals# 12.5Clerks# 13.5Service#Workers#and#Sales# 13.9Trades#and#Labourers# 28.1Nursing#and#Midwifery#Professionals 2.0Teaching#Professionals 5.7Armed#Forces# 0.6

Marital&Status&(Married)Married# 47.7Widowed# 8.4Separated/Divorced# 19.3Never#Married# 24.6

Respondent's&Race&(White)White 78.0Black 14.2Other 7.8

Interviews&in&Spanish&or&English&(White)English# 97.9Spanish# 2.1

Labour&Force&Status&(Working*Full:time)Working#FullWtime# 54.3Working#PartWtime# 11.4Unemployed# 5.8Retired# 14.9School# 2.2Keeping#House# 9.3Other# 2.1

Respondent's&Sex&(Male)Male# 44.9Female# 55.1

Mother's&Employment&Status&(Yes)Yes 67.3No 32.7

Likelikood&of&Job&Loss&(Not*Likely*to*Lose*Job)Not#likley#to#lose#job# 57.9Likely#to#lose#job# 6.8Not#applicable# 35.3

Political&Views&(Liberal)Liberal# 26.4Moderate# 36.8Conservative# 33.4Not#Applicable# 3.4

Strength&of&Religious&Affiliation&(Strong)Strong# 35.9Somewhat#Strong# 8.5Not#Very#Strong# 36.5No#Religion# 15.8No#Answer# 3.3

 

29  

Table&2:&Gender&Role&Ideology&Coefficient&by&Occupation&and&Generation&(Bivariate)

Occupation GenerationRespondent's&Occupation&Category&(Trades(and(Labourers)Legislators,,Sr.,Officials,and,Managers, 0.650***

(11.42)

Professionals, 0.962***

(15.62)

Technicians,and,Associate,Professionals, 0.703***

(12.13)

Clerks, 0.659***

(11.67)

Service,Workers,and,Sales, 0.492***

(8.79)

Nursing,Professionals 1.175***

(9.36)

Teaching,Professionals 1.039***

(13.26)

Armed,Forces, 0.862***

(3.89)

Respondent's&Generation&(Generation(Y)Greatest,Generation O1.948***

(O21.65)

Silent,Generation O1.141***

(O16.35)

Baby,Boomers O0.529***

(O8.39)

Generation,X O0.260***

(O4.00)

Constant 5.780*** 6.894***

(179.76) (120.96)

N 13423 13423

t,statistics,in,parentheses

*,p<0.05,,**,p<0.01,,***,p<0.001

 

30  

Table&3:&Gender&Role&Ideology&Scores&(Multivariate)

Model&1&=&

Occupation

Model&2:&

Demographics

Model&3&=&

Work&Status

Model&4&=&

Attitudes

Respondent's&Occupation&Category&(Trades(and(Labourers)Legislators,,Sr.,Officials,and,Managers, 0.631*** :0.000451 :0.0359 0.00326

(11.40) (:0.01) (:0.48) (0.04)Professionals, 0.923*** 0.216** 0.200* 0.214**

(15.43) (2.64) (2.46) (2.69)Technicians,and,Associate,Professionals, 0.634*** 0.0556 0.0382 0.0850

(11.24) (0.67) (0.46) (1.05)Clerks, 0.681*** 0.164 0.155 0.152

(12.42) (1.48) (1.42) (1.42)Service,Workers,and,Sales, 0.392*** 0.181* 0.164 0.202*

(7.19) (2.08) (1.91) (2.40)Nursing,Professionals 1.254*** 0.859 0.702 0.486

(10.28) (1.53) (1.27) (0.90)Teaching,Professionals 1.067*** 0.392** 0.385** 0.317*

(14.02) (2.71) (2.69) (2.26)Armed,Forces, 0.737*** 0.299 0.248 0.315

(3.42) (1.23) (1.03) (1.34)Respondent's&Generation&(Generation(Y)Greatest,Generation :1.955*** :0.718** :0.673** :0.584**

(:22.03) (:3.18) (:3.01) (:2.66)Silent,Generation :1.179*** :0.259 :0.256 :0.167

(:17.09) (:1.54) (:1.53) (:1.02)Baby,Boomers :0.569*** 0.00665 :0.0482 0.000258

(:9.10) (0.06) (:0.42) (0.00)Generation,X :0.289*** 0.0228 :0.00674 0.0304

(:4.51) (0.30) (:0.09) (0.40)Respondent's&Sex&(Male)Female 0.721*** 0.846*** 0.886***

(10.88) (12.67) (13.52)Sex*Respondent's&Occupation&Category&(Male*Trades(and(Labourers)Female*Legislators,,Sr.,Officials,and,Managers, 0.367*** 0.309** 0.239*

(3.33) (2.83) (2.24)Female*Professionals, 0.278* 0.233* 0.142

(2.34) (1.98) (1.23)Female*Technicians,and,Associate,Professionals, 0.0921 0.0297 :0.0359

(0.81) (0.26) (:0.32)Female*Clerks, :0.0467 :0.0623 :0.0751

(:0.35) (:0.48) (:0.59)Female*Service,Workers,and,Sales, :0.295** :0.303** :0.375***

(:2.58) (:2.68) (:3.38)Female*Nursing,Professionals :0.493 :0.397 :0.206

(:0.86) (:0.70) (:0.37)Female*Teaching,Professionals :0.247 :0.291 :0.244

(:1.46) (:1.74) (:1.49)Female*Armed,Forces, 0.536 0.444 0.375

(1.13) (0.94) (0.82)

Respondent's&Age&in&Years :0.0150*** :0.00998** :0.00897**(:4.49) (:2.93) (:2.69)

Survey&Year 0.0312*** 0.0289*** 0.0283***(7.58) (7.04) (7.02)

Respondent's&Education&in&Years 0.100*** 0.0889*** 0.0872***(14.66) (13.05) (12.97)

Respondent's&Race&(White)Black 0.112* 0.0740 0.112*

(2.36) (1.56) (2.39)Other :0.380*** :0.346*** :0.396***

(:6.06) (:5.57) (:6.48)Marital&Status&(Married)Widowed, 0.142* 0.125 0.0614

(2.09) (1.85) (0.93)Separated/Divorced, 0.216*** 0.159*** 0.0570

(4.95) (3.64) (1.33)Never,Married, 0.274*** 0.244*** 0.117**

(6.13) (5.47) (2.65)Interviews&in&Spanish&or&English&(White)Spanish, :0.826*** :0.674*** :0.667***

(:6.91) (:5.65) (:5.69)Mother's&Employment&Status&(Yes)No :0.426*** :0.394***

(:11.87) (:11.20)Labour&Force&Status&(Working(Full;time)Working,Part:time, :0.131* :0.124*

(:2.46) (:2.38)Unemployed, :0.0271 :0.0354

(:0.31) (:0.41)Retired :0.0445 :0.0418

(:0.44) (:0.42)School 0.0659 0.0926

(0.49) (0.70)Keeping,House, :0.526*** :0.479***

(:5.31) (:4.94)Other, :0.157 :0.116

(:1.15) (:0.86)Likelihood&of&Job&Loss&(Not(Likely(to(Lose(Job)Likely,to,lose,job, :0.183** :0.219***

(:2.81) (:3.42)Not,applicable, :0.174* :0.185*

(:2.13) (:2.32)Political&Views&(Liberal)Moderate, :0.231***

(:5.72)Conservative, :0.775***

(:18.40)Not,Applicable, :0.506***

(:5.59)Strength&of&Religious&Affiliation&(Strong)Somewhat,Strong, 0.158**

(2.65)Not,Very,Strong, 0.319***

(8.49)No,Religion 0.460***

(9.22)No,Answer 0.229*

(2.56)Not,Asked :0.233

(:0.32)

Constant 6.429*** :57.44*** :52.57*** :51.21***(102.49) (:6.99) (:6.42) (:6.38)

N 13423 13423 13423 13423t,statistics,in,parentheses*,p<0.05,,**,p<0.01,,***,p<0.001

 

31  

Table&4:&Gender&Role&Ideology&Scores&by&Gender&(Multivariate)Men Women

Respondent's&Occupation&Category&(Trades(and(Labourers)Legislators,,Sr.,Officials,and,Managers, 0.0621 0.173*

(0.84) (2.01)Professionals, 0.279*** 0.287**

(3.39) (2.88)Technicians,and,Associate,Professionals, 0.128 0.0000253

(1.60) (0.00)Clerks, 0.186 0.0431

(1.78) (0.58)Service,Workers,and,Sales, 0.199* J0.187*

(2.42) (J2.46)Nursing,Professionals 0.570 0.198

(1.08) (1.48)Teaching,Professionals 0.409** J0.00678

(2.91) (J0.06)Armed,Forces, 0.328 0.662

(1.43) (1.63)Respondent's&Generation&(Generation(Y)Greatest,Generation J0.654* J0.451

(J2.05) (J1.50)Silent,Generation J0.455 0.102

(J1.93) (0.45)Baby,Boomers J0.138 0.140

(J0.85) (0.90)Generation,X 0.0240 0.0691

(0.22) (0.66)

Respondent's&Age&in&Years J0.00838 J0.00997*(J1.73) (J2.18)

Survey&Year 0.0288*** 0.0281***(4.94) (5.07)

Respondent's&Education&in&Years 0.0801*** 0.0954***(8.60) (9.88)

Respondent's&Race&(White)Black 0.239** 0.0228

(3.25) (0.37)Other J0.430*** J0.373***

(J5.15) (J4.21)Marital&Status&(Married)Widowed, 0.0843 0.0426

(0.73) (0.51)Separated/Divorced, J0.0629 0.132*

(J0.99) (2.25)Never,Married, 0.0184 0.186**

(0.29) (2.97)Interviews&in&Spanish&or&English&(White)Spanish, J0.561*** J0.772***

(J3.37) (J4.70)Mother's&Employment&Status&(Yes)No J0.422*** J0.375***

(J8.28) (J7.75)Labour&Force&Status&(Working(Full:time)Working,PartJtime, J0.00995 J0.185**

(J0.11) (J2.78)Unemployed, J0.176 0.0729

(J1.42) (0.61)Retired J0.141 0.0526

(J1.00) (0.37)School J0.232 0.349

(J1.18) (1.94)Keeping,House, J0.0135 J0.389**

(J0.06) (J3.04)Other, 0.0211 J0.255

(0.11) (J1.32)Likelihood&of&Job&Loss&(Not(Likely(to(Lose(Job)Likely,to,lose,job, J0.0950 J0.350***

(J1.06) (J3.87)Not,applicable, 0.0222 J0.364**

(0.20) (J3.20)Political&Views&(Liberal)Moderate, J0.213*** J0.242***

(J3.58) (J4.41)Conservative, J0.739*** J0.781***

(J12.17) (J13.41)Not,Applicable, J0.399** J0.581***

(J2.91) (J4.82)Strength&of&Religious&Affiliation&(Strong)Somewhat,Strong, 0.169 0.166*

(1.88) (2.09)Not,Very,Strong, 0.285*** 0.361***

(5.12) (7.06)No,Religion 0.495*** 0.418***

(7.22) (5.70)No,Answer 0.232 0.233

(1.80) (1.87)Not,Asked J0.0360 J0.817

(J0.04) (J0.63)

Constant J52.24*** J50.08***(J4.49) (J4.53)

N 6023 7400t,statistics,in,parentheses*,p<0.05,,**,p<0.01,,***,p<0.001

 

32  

References

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4(2), 139–158.

Bonacich, E. (1972). A theory of ethnic antagonism: The split labor market. American Sociological Review, 37(5), 547–559. doi:10.2307/2093450

Brewster, K. L., & Padavic, I. (2000). Change in gender-ideology 1977-1996: The contributions of intracohort change and population turnover. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2), 477–487.

Browne, I., & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487–513.

Buchanan, T. (2014). The influence of gender role attitudes on perceptions of women’s work performance and the importance of fair pay. Sociological Spectrum, 34(3), 203–221. doi:10.1080/02732173.2014.895637

Casey, C., & Alach, P. (2009). “Just a temp”? Women, temporary employment and lifestyle, 18(3), 459–480. doi:10.1177/0950017004045546

Catalyst. (2014). Statistical overview of women in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workplace

Cech, E. A., & Blair-Loy, M. (2010). Perceiving glass ceilings? Meritocratic versus structural explanations of gender inequality among women in science and technology. Social Problems, 57(3), 371–397. doi:10.1525/sp.2010.57.3.371.SP5703

Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 413–423.

Cha, Y. (2013). Overwork and the persistence of gender segregation in occupations. Gender & Society, 27(2), 158–184. doi:10.1177/0891243212470510

Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730.

Demaiter, E. I., & Adams, T. L. (2008, December 12). “I really didn’t have any problems with the male-female thing until …”: Successful women’s experiences in IT organizations. Canadian Journal of Sociology. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/CJS/article/view/1126

 

33  

Executive Office of the President. (2011). Women and girls in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp-women-girls-stem-november2011.pdf

Farley, R. (1996). The new American reality: Who we are, how we got here, and where we’re going. New York: Sage.

Firestone, J. M., Harris, R. J., & Lambert, L. C. (1999). Gender role ideology and the gender based differences in earnings. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 20(2), 191–215. doi:10.1023/A:1022158811154

Gonsoulin, M., & LeBoeuf, A. (2010). Intra-group variation in conservative Christians’ gender ideologies (1972-2006). Social Science Journal, 47(1), 225–236. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2009.09.001

Hakim, C. (2000). Work-Lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lips, H., & Lawson, K. (2009). Work values, gender and expectations about work commitment and pay: laying the groundwork for the “motherhood penalty.” Sex Roles, 61, 667–676.

Mason, K., & Lu, Y. (1988). Attitudes toward women’s familial roles: Changes in the United States, 1977-1985, 2(1), 39–57.

Maurer, T. W., & Pleck, J. H. (2006). Fathers’ caregiving and breadwinning: A gender congruence analysis. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7(2), 101–112. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.7.2.101

Mennino, S. F., & Brayfield, a. (2002). Job-family trade-offs: The multidimensional effects of gender. Work and Occupations, 29(2), 226–256. doi:10.1177/0730888402029002005

Miller, G. E. (2004). Frontier masculinity in the oil industry: The experience of women engineers. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(1), 47–73. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2004.00220.x

Morrison, Z., Bourke, M., & Kelley, C. (2005). “Stop making it such a big issue”: Perceptions and experiences of gender inequality by undergraduates at a British University. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28(2-3), 150–162. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2005.04.020

Ortner, S. B. (2014). Too soon for post-feminism: The ongoing life of patriarchy in neoliberal america. History and Anthropology, 25(4), 530–549. doi:10.1080/02757206.2014.930458

 

34  

Phillips, S. J. (2013). Understanding gender role ideology and marital satisfaction in midwest caucasian baptist women. Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Reskin, B. F. (2000). The proximate causes of employment discrimination. Contemporary Sociology, 29(2), 319. doi:10.2307/2654387

Rindfuss, R. R., Brewster, K. L., & Kavee, A. L. (1996). Women , work , and children: Behavioral and attitudinal change in the United States. Population and Development Review, 22(3), 457–482.

Roth, L. M. (2004). The social psychology of tokenism: Status and homophily processes on wall street. Sociological Perspectives, 47(2), 189–214.

Schnittker, J., Freese, J., & Powell, B. (2003). Who are feminists and what do they believe? The role of generations. American Sociological Review, 68(4), 607–622.

Smith, T. W., Marsden, P., Hout, M., & Kim, J. (n.d.). General Social Surveys, 1972-2014.

Spain, D., & Bianchi, S. M. (1996). Balancing Act: Motherhood, marriage, and employment among American women. New York: Sage.

Suter, E. a., & Toller, P. W. (2006). Gender role and feminism revisited: A follow-up study. Sex Roles, 55(1-2), 135–146. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9065-4

Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Zimmer, C., Stainback, K., Robinson, C., Taylor, T., & McTague, T. (2006). Documenting desegregation: Segregation in American workplaces by race, ethnicity, and sex, 1966-2003. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 565–588. doi:10.1177/000312240607100403

Weisgram, E. S., Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2010). Gender, values, and occupational interests among children, adolescents, and adults. Child Development, 81(3), 778–96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01433.x

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151.

Wilcox, W. B., & Nock, S. L. (2007). What’s love got to do with it  ? Equality, equity, commitment and women's marital quality. Social Forces, 84(3), 1321–1345.

Williams, C. (1995). Still a man’s world: Men who do women's work. Berkeley: University of California Press.